California Central Coast Housing Best Practices Toolkit
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
California Central Coast Housing Best Practices Toolkit
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4
2. THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CRISIS ................................................................................. 4
3. HOUSING PLANNING STRATEGIES ................................................................................. 8
Accessory Dwelling Units ...................................................................................................................... 8
Acquisition Rehabilitation or Conversion ........................................................................................... 11
By-Right Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 12
Commercial Development Impact Fee ............................................................................................... 14
Community Land Trust ........................................................................................................................ 14
Condominium Conversion .................................................................................................................. 15
COVID-19 Housing Resiliency .............................................................................................................. 16
Establishing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District ............................................................... 18
Form-Based Code ................................................................................................................................ 19
General Fund Allocation Including Former RDA “Boomerang” Funds................................................ 19
Graduated Density Bonus ................................................................................................................... 20
Home Sharing Programs ..................................................................................................................... 21
Housing Accountability Act ................................................................................................................. 22
Housing Development Impact Fee ...................................................................................................... 23
Housing Overlay Zone ......................................................................................................................... 23
Housing Trust Funds............................................................................................................................ 24
Identify Potential Other Funding Sources to Pay for Growth ............................................................. 25
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance ......................................................................................................... 25
Infrastructure Improvement Strategies .............................................................................................. 26
In-Lieu Fees (Inclusionary Zoning) ...................................................................................................... 28
One-to-One Replacement ................................................................................................................... 29
Preservation of Mobile Homes ........................................................................................................... 29
Public Land for Affordable Housing .................................................................................................... 31
Reduce Fees or Waivers ...................................................................................................................... 31
Reduce Housing Operating Costs ........................................................................................................ 33
Reduce Parking Requirements ............................................................................................................ 34
Rent Stabilization ................................................................................................................................ 35
2
Single Room Occupancy Preservation Ordinance ............................................................................... 36
Streamlined Permitting Process.......................................................................................................... 37
Surplus Public Lands Act ..................................................................................................................... 43
Tiny Homes and Tiny Home Villages ................................................................................................... 43
Vacant Property Restrictions .............................................................................................................. 47
Zoning ................................................................................................................................................. 48
4. Funding Housing Planning and Policy Updates ............................................................ 51
Appendix 1: Summary of 2019 Housing Laws ..................................................................... 54
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 54
2. 2019 Housing Laws Overview ..................................................................................................... 54
Appendix 2: Summary of 2018 Housing Laws ..................................................................... 56
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 56
2. 2018 Housing Laws Overview ..................................................................................................... 56
Appendix 3: Summary of 2017 Housing Laws ..................................................................... 58
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 58
2. 2017 Housing Laws Overview ..................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Summary of 2019 Housing Laws ..................................................................... 54
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 54
2. 2019 Housing Laws Overview ..................................................................................................... 54
Appendix 2: Summary of 2018 Housing Laws ..................................................................... 56
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 56
2. 2018 Housing Laws Overview ..................................................................................................... 56
Appendix 3: Summary of 2017 Housing Laws ..................................................................... 58
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 58
2. 2017 Housing Laws Overview ..................................................................................................... 58
3
1. INTRODUCTION
In September 2019, the adopted FY 2019-20 California Budget (AB 74) and associated
housing trailer bill (AB 101) established the Local Government Planning Support Grants
Program and directed the California Central Coast to create a multiagency working group to
oversee implementation of a portion of this program. The Central Coast Housing Working
Group (CCHWG) was subsequently established with the help of the Association of Monterey
Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), Council of San Benito County Governments (SBtCOG), San
Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), and the Santa Barbara County Association of
Governments (SBCAG). The CCHWG will oversee the implementation of this program to
provide the Central Coast region with one-time funding, including grants for planning
activities, to enable jurisdictions to meet the sixth Cycle of the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA). The program is managed by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). Approximately $8,000,000 will be made available to the
Central Coast region under this program. The Central Coast is delineated by the boundaries
of AMBAG, SBtCOG, SLOCOG andSBCAG and includes the jurisdictions within.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements to receive this funding, the California Central Coast
must identify current housing planning best practices that promote sufficient supply of
housing affordable to all income levels, and a strategy for increasing adoption of these
practices at the regional level, where viable. This toolkit provides a set of housing planning
best practices as a resource for jurisdictions in the California Central Coast.
2. THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CRISIS
California is facing significant housing challenges, including lack of supply and affordability,
high rates of homelessness, low homeownership rates, and housing located further from
job centers, transit, and areas of opportunity.
California’s housing shortage has caused severe housing issues for renters and homeowners
in both supply and affordability. California needs more than 1.8 million additional homes by
2025 to maintain pace with projected household growth. Since the 1950s, California’s
homeownership rate has fallen below the national rate, with a significant gap persisting
since the 1970s. Housing growth that does occur often takes the form of urban sprawl,
expanding into undeveloped areas.
From 1954-1989, California averaged more than 200,000 new homes annually, with
multifamily housing accounting for more of the housing production. Over the past 10 years,
4
California has averaged less than 80,000 new homes annually. The production of homes
increased somewhat during the housing boom of the mid 2000s, and then dropped,
coinciding with the economic downturn referred to as the Great Recession. Figure 1 gives
an overview of the housing built in the United States since the 1930s. Unlike home sales
prices, rents did not experience a significant downward trend during the Great Recession.
Instead, demand for rental housing has stayed strong and rents have trended upward, even
when adjusting for inflation. Between 2006 and 2014, the number of housing units that
were owner occupied fell by almost 250,000 in California, while the number of renter-
occupied units increased by about 850,000. Overall homeownership rates are at their
lowest since the 1940s.
Figure 1: Majority of California Housing More Than 35 Years Old
In the last 10 years, California has built an average of 80,000 homes a year, far below the
180,000 homes needed each year to keep up with projected population growth from 2015-
2025. This lack of supply greatly impacts housing affordability. Average housing costs in
California have outpaced the nation and more acute problems exist in coastal areas.
Housing costs and supply issues particularly affect vulnerable populations that tend to have
the lowest incomes and experience additional barriers to housing access. There is a shortfall
of more than one million rental homes affordable to extremely- and very low-income
households and California's homeownership rate has declined to the lowest rate since the
1940s. Of California’s almost 6 million renter households, more than 3 million households
pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent, and nearly 30 percent — more than
1.7 million households — pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. In
California's rural areas, high transportation costs often negate the relatively more
affordable housing prices. The combined burden of housing and transportation costs can
leave residents in rural communities with a cost-of-living comparable to their urban and
suburban counterparts.
5
Over the last 10 years, there has been a skewed jobs-housing balance where urban and
coastal communities host large concentrations of jobs and services, and most new housing
is built inland. This imbalance has resulted in in an increase of overcrowding (more than one
tenant per room) in owner’s households and especially in renter’s households. Figure 2
illustrates California’s overcrowding rate compared to the nation. Overcrowding in
California is more than twice as high as the national average of 8.4%. Additional housing
supply is needed throughout the state, but most new development is occurring further from
job centers.
Figure 2: California's Overcrowding Rate is More Than Double U.S. Average
On the Central Coast a large portion of the population is employed by the hospitality and
agricultural industry. These industries are two of the top contributors that fuel the regional
economy, yet renters in both industries are among the most vulnerable (see Figure 3).
Average renter income over the decade has not kept up with rent inflation in California.
Figure 3: Change in inflation adjusted median rent and renter income since 2000 shows
that renter income has not kept pace with increasing rents 2000-2015.
Renters are stuck in the endless loop of living very low-income (VLI) and extremely low-
income (ELI) due to the lack of housing that we face in California and the additional
struggles faced by the Central Coast’s unique rural/urban demographic. Figure 4 shows the
6
median home prices for a single-family home in 2017. The highest prices were found in the
coastal areas, the Central Coast amongst the highest-cost market in the state. While the
need for additional housing is high, housing developers in the Central Coast face a variety of
challenges building new housing.
Figure 4: Median Home Sale Prices by County, January 2017
Source: California Association of Realtors, Historical Housing Data, Median Prices of Existing Detached Homes January
2017.
Many coastal areas in the Central Coast are face water shortages, limited land availability,
significant litigation against new development projects and major environmental
constraints. These factors can limit new housing development which has contributed to
high housing costs and limited affordability along the coast. Environmental constraints are
often reduced inland of the Central Coast, as are water and land availability limitations. This
has generally increased developer interest in inland areas. However, inland housing
development may still face significant environmental litigation and may be constrained by
agricultural greenlines which preserve agricultural lands from sprawl. These factors can
make inland housing more available and relatively more affordable than housing in coastal
areas.
7
3. HOUSING PLANNING STRATEGIES
Housing affordability is a challenge that jurisdictions across the country are facing now and into
the future. Since each county is unique, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to housing
affordability that every jurisdiction can implement. The best strategy for encouraging housing
development for each jurisdiction depends on the nature of the problem it faces, market
demands unique to its area, and local preferences. Every community may address the housing
crisis in different ways depending on local geographic constraints, living preferences, land
prices, access to transit, and policy preferences. The tools identified here most must be
developed and employed at the local level. Local governments should take advantage of the
numerous tools available to them by utilizing a combination of housing planning, policy
changes, inter-jurisdictional partnerships, community engagement, local funding solutions,
planning and zoning strategies and grants to increase the stock of housing affordable to various
income levels.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Summary and Benefits
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as second units, granny flats, or in-law units, are
dwellings that exist on a lot with another house. ADUs can be built as detached units in the
backyard, or as a garage conversion (attached or detached). An existing room within a house
may also be converted into a separate unit ADUs are a sustainable way to add flexible,
affordable and diverse housing option with minimal impacts on existing development patterns
and infrastructure.
In recognition of the importance of this housing strategy, in 2016, California adopted new laws
intended to make it easier for property owners to create ADUs, mandating that all local
agencies adopt an ADU ordinance that is consistent with the new requirements by January 1,
2017. The State law requires local jurisdictions permit ADUs without discretionary review, and
provides guidance as to parking requirements and fees. In the instance of a local jurisdiction
that has not adopted a local ordinance, the state legislation will prevail.
Remove Parking Requirements for ADUs
Off-street parking requirements severely limit the promise of ADUs as a significant housing
type. For most lots that a homeowner would want to build an ADU, adding a new parking space
may be infeasible in terms of either space or cost. The parking impacts of ADUs are relatively
minimal because ADU residents have fewer vehicles on average and are typically dispersed
throughout neighborhoods. State law currently allows jurisdictions to require one parking space
8per unit, but prohibits minimum parking requirements in certain situations. In the SACOG
region, 19 out of the 28 jurisdictions comply with State law by allowing for the construction of
ADUs without additional parking in these situations. Jurisdictions can go further by not
requiring parking at all for ADUs, which 4 out of the 28 jurisdictions in the SACOG region have
done.
What to change:
• Remove parking requirements for ADUs, regardless of zone.
Remove Owner-Occupancy Requirements
Owner-occupancy requirements may stipulate that an owner of the property must live on the
property if an ADU is to be built or rented out. These requirements could limit the construction
of new ADUs. Owner-occupancy requirements mean that the owners of single family rental
homes cannot build ADUs. In addition, if a homeowner builds and rents out an ADU, it does not
allow them to continue to rent the ADU should they wish to move and not sell.
What to change:
• Remove owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs.
Provide a Path for Permitting Unpermitted ADUs
Unpermitted accessory dwelling units represent a small percent of the current housing stock.
Legitimizing these units would boost building code compliance and raise property tax revenue.
Cities can add stipulated processes requiring, at least one low- or moderate-income affordable
housing unit for each legalized unit.
What to change:
• Allow Unpermitted Dwelling Units (UDUs) eligibility for legalization through a streamlined
application process formed through an Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
• Create a process to permit current legal and illegal ADUs
Allow ADUs in all Residential Zones
Allow ADUs in all Residential Zones ADUs may be most desirable in high opportunity single
family neighborhoods where there is good access to employment centers, amenities and
schools, but they provide a benefit outside of single family neighborhoods as well. As such, they
could be expanded to not just be limited to single family zoning districts or subsets of single
family districts.
What to change:
9• Allow ADUs in all residential zones, including zones that allow multifamily housing.
Be Transparent About How Much ADU Builders Should Expect in Fees
Up-front costs, which are typically over $100,000 in fees, are often cited as a top barrier for
building an ADU. Additionally, ADUs are typically undertaken by homeowners who are not
particularly familiar with the development review process. As such, it is critical that jurisdictions
are transparent about the approval process and the fees a homeowner should expect to pay.
What to change:
• Make publicly available which fees will apply to ADUs and how much they will cost.
• Consider a fee reduction pilot for ADUs that charges fees based only on net new living area
over 600 square feet.
Allow Minimum Sized ADUs on Most Common Residential Lot
Requirements related to maximum square footage, minimum lot size, and setbacks can all limit
the size and widespread applicability of ADUs. While there is a market for smaller ADUs,
especially among younger singles and older adults, ADUs at least 800 square feet are likely
marketable to a wider range of renters, which could impact the ability or desire of homeowners
to build them. Allowing up to an 800 square foot ADU provides a good compromise between
financial viability and the natural affordability of a smaller than typical unit.
What to change:
• Increase maximum allowed ADU square footage to at least 800 square feet, regardless of
primary unit square footage or whether the ADU is detached or attached.
• Remove minimum lot size requirements for ADUs so that ADUs can be built in small lot
neighborhoods, which can have strong demand for rental housing.
• Relax setback requirements to ensure that even small, skinny, and irregular lots can build
ADUs. Adopt ADU-specific setbacks across all zones that standardize a reasonable setback
(like 5ft) for ADUs.
Build a Campaign
Given the unique nature of homeowner developers and the cost barriers, building a regional
culture of ADU construction may benefit from a more intentional effort on the part of the
public sector to advertise, educate, and encourage.
What to change:
• Actively promote benefits of ADUs to homeowners through city websites and outreach.
10Model Ordinance/ Resources
• City of Los Angeles, Unapproved Dwelling Unit Ordinance
• 21 Elements and Home For All Second Unit Resources Center
• Second Unit Idea Book
• Draft Second Unit Workbook
• Second Unit Calculator
• California Department of Housing and Community Development, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Guidance
• City of Albany, Secondary Residential Units Summary Sheet
• City of Berkeley, Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance
• City of Novato, Junior ADU standards
• City of Walnut Creek Accessory Dwelling Unit Guide
• City of Santa Cruz, ADU Policy waives various permit fees in exchange for a property
owner’s agreement to restrict a new accessory dwelling unit to a very-low or low income
household. More fees are waived in exchange for an agreement to rent to a very-low
income household as opposed to a low-income household.
• Goldfarb & Lipman, Law Alert: Accessory Dwelling Unit ‘Cleanup’ Legislation (Page 3)
• Goldfarb & Lipman, Summary of 2017 Housing Legislation, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Legislation (Page 31)
• State law as chaptered
Acquisition Rehabilitation or Conversion
Summary and Benefits
Acquisition rehabilitation refers to acquiring existing housing, rehabilitating (if needed), and
deed-restricting to long-term affordable housing. Acquiring typically older, under-valued
apartments that already house low- and moderate-income households is a strategy aimed at
preventing the displacement of existing residents, and maintaining housing affordability, while
investing in and stabilizing neighborhoods.
11An acquisition/rehabilitation/conversion strategy is a flexible tool that can be adapted to meet
the housing needs in jurisdictions of all sizes and types of housing stock. Preservation of the
existing housing stock typically costs about one-half to two-thirds as much as new construction.
Cities can provide local funding for non-profit housing organizations to use with Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, in some cases, to fund acquisition and rehabilitation, converting them to
long-term affordable housing. This serves to increase the supply of permanently affordable
housing, and helps revitalize neighborhoods with concentrations of aging rental housing.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of San Jose, Memorandum for the conversion of vacant buildings
• Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, Residential Rehabilitation Programs
By-Right Strategies
Summary and Benefits
Discretionary review of proposed development projects tends to increase the public and private
cost of the entitlement process for all types of new housing and increase the duration of project
approval and may discourage housing developments of all types. By-right strategies refer to the
practice of removing a large portion of discretionary review from the development approval
process, and instead implementing an objective set of critiera that, if fulfilled, guarantee
approval of their permit. This approach can reduce development costs for new homes by
implementing a transparent, consistent, predictable path to adoption for projects that also
conform to local development standards.
Maximize By-Right Approvals and Minimize Discretionary Review Opportunities
One of the significant determinants of how quickly housing can get through a development
review process is whether or not the proposed project undergoes what is commonly referred to
as discretionary review. Discretionary review means that in order to obtain entitlements, a
project applicant must attain project approval from a discretionary body. The discretionary
party is often a planner or planning commission that has the discretion to interpret the
requirements of local plans and ordiances to either approve, deny, or apply conditions to a
project’s approval. Jurisdictions can significantly reduce costs, delay, and uncertainty for
building new homes by implementing non-discretionary or “by-right” ministerial approvals for
projects that comply with zoning/general plan designations.
12By-right projects require only ministerial review to ensure they are consistent with a template
set of criteria based on existing general plan and zoning rules that often take the form of
objective standards for building quality, health, and safety.
One strategy that is commonly used to move from discretionary to ministerial approval has
been to adopt a specific plan for a particular neighborhood or corridor. If the specific plan
includes a certified EIR, consistent residential, mixed-use, and employment center/office
projects can be by-right and may be exempt from CEQA review (Government Code § 65457).
Many specific plans include objective, non-discretionary design review standards that provide
enough detail to ensure good design but are not so prescriptive that everything looks the same.
One way to accomplish this is by implementing form-based code features for the specific plan.
What to change:
• Allow by-right approvals by establishing by-right approval criteria for housing projects.
Minimize discretionary review processes required for housing projects.
• Allow missing middle housing by-right across most residentially zoned land.
• Set a standard review timeline for by-right projects (less than 90 days). If the reviewing
party does not provide determination in that timeframe the project is automatically
deemed to meet the general plan and zoning standards.
• Explore the potential for specific plans with form-based or otherwise objective design
standards that allow for CEQA tiering and non-discretionary project approval.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of Berkeley Infill Environmental Checklist used of SB226 to streamline CEQA review of
Mixed-Use Project, Berkeley: 90 market-rate and 8 affordable apartments and 7,800
square feet of commercial floorspace on 0.5 acre use of SB226.
• Menlo Park Infill Environmental Checklist using SB226 to streamline CEQA review of 220
market rate housing units, 405,000 square feet of office floorspace, and 22,000 square feet
of retail floorspace in multiple buildings across 6.4 acres.
• City of San Francisco executive summary and resolution implementing SB 743:
• City of Oakland’s Planning Commission has also directed staff to revise the City’s CEQA
Thresholds of Significance Guidance in accordance with SB 743. The Staff Report provides
additional information.
• Fehr and Peers provide a roadmap for taking land use projects, transportation projects or
general plan through SB743.
13Commercial Development Impact Fee
Summary and Benefits
To help fund new housing stock, many cities have turned to the use of commercial
development impact fees which are levied on new commercial construction. While new
commercial development creates jobs, a portion of those jobs are low-paying and employees
cannot afford market-rate housing. With commercial impact fees, also known as job-housing
linkage fees, developers are required to contribute to a housing fund which is then used to
promote the construction of additional housing in the jurisdiction. The goal of this approach is
to create an appropriate jobs-housing balance in communities with significantly more jobs than
housing. This has the added benefit of reducing the amount that residents need to commute to
reach regional job centers, reducing traffic throughout the area.
The approach to implementing this type of impact fee is typically determined through a jobs-
housing nexus analysis that shows the connection between the construction of new commercial
buildings, employment, and the need for affordable housing.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of Menlo Park, Commercial Development Fee (Zoning Code Chapter 16.96.030)
• City of Oakland, Jobs/Housing Impact Fee and Economic Feasibility Study for Oakland
Impact Fee Program
• City of San Jose, Housing Needs and Strategy Session Follow-up Administrative Report
• 21 Elements, Grand Nexus Study
Community Land Trust
Summary and Benefits
High land costs are an obstacle to developing and securing affordable housing for lower-income
families. Community land trusts allow for the purchase a house without the land which reduces
housing costs and brings additional housing into a more affordable range. Community Land
Trusts (CLT) are typically nonprofit landholding organizations that preserve long-term housing
affordability by owning the land that housing is built. Housing trust funds are extremely flexible
and can be used to support innovative ways to address many types of critical housing needs.
For instance, a local affordable housing trust fund can allow local jurisdictions to serve
households that may not qualify for federal or state benefit programs or offer more flexible
subsidies to fill financial gaps.
14Buying into community land trusts can help keep rapidly growing cities more affordable. In
some cases, the trust collects a percentage of the appreciation when an owner sells, providing
the funds to subsidize the next buyer. Low-income families, through buying into community
land trusts, can build wealth through homeownership that would be otherwise not an option in
areas where there is scarce low-income housing.
What to change:
• Hold public meetings to understand the public’s involvement in creating a non-profit based
land trust.
• Create a local funding component that can invest annual interest into a community land
trust.
• Promote the formation of start-up CLTs:
o Facilitate public information/outreach activities ○ Create municipally supported
CLTs
o Provide start-up financing
o Commit multi-year operational funds
o Commit project funding and/or municipal property for permanently affordable
ownership housing in the CLT model.
• Subsidize affordable housing development by either donating land and buildings from the
municipality’s own inventory to a community land trust or selling the properties at a
discount.
• Regulatory concessions: Municipalities sometimes support development of CLT homes by
reducing or waiving application and impact fees, relaxing zoning requirements for parking
or lot coverage, and offering other regulatory concessions.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• Oakland Community Land Trust
Condominium Conversion Limits
Summary and Benefits
Condominium conversion is the process of converting apartments, which are rented by the
occupants, into owner-occupied condominium units. This process is often implemented by
building owners who are selling buildings, allowing them to take advantage of high cost real
estate market to make significant profits. However, this process often removes affordable
15rental units from the market, replacing them with high cost owner-occupied units that are often
unaffordable.
In order to protect rental housing, jurisdictions may institute additional limitations to
condominium conversion. This may include review by a local government body before approval,
fees, long notice requirements for tenants, and giving tenants the opportunity to buy or move.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of Larkspur, as a precondition to acceptance of a use permit links conversions to the
annual vacancy rate, applies inclusionary to all converted units, requires 40% of the total
units in the project be maintained as rental units in perpetuity with restrictions on rent
increases and requires relocation assistance.
• City of Mountain View, Conversion Limitation Act establishes an absolute minimum
number of apartment units which it seeks to maintain; exceptions if > 50% of all current
tenant households are purchasing a unit, then conversion beyond the baseline unit count
will be considered; relocation benefits are applicable to all rental units.
• City Walnut Creek, conversion code section 10-1.705 entitled the Effect of Conversion on
the City’s Low-and Moderate – Income Housing Supply limits annual conversions to five
percent of total rental stock (buildings of two units or more); subjects conversions to
inclusionary requirements; provides some tenant protections for low and moderate-
income families, and prioritizes local residents and workers for the purchase of converted
units. This section also outlines the conditions under which conversion can occur beyond
the annual limit.
COVID-19 Housing Resiliency
Summary and Benefits
In the wake of state and country shelter in place orders, private sector layoffs, and the
associated economic impact, California’s housing market may face challenges. Layoffs in local
city and county building departments have delayed permitting and review of many construction
projects across the state. However, cities and counties are taking local initiative to ensure that
local housing supply shortages are not amplified post-COVID.
California jurisdictions are diversifying their approaches to aid and stabilize the housing supply
through initiatives aimed at supporting homeowners and renters and ensuring housing
production continues. Jurisdictions are developing unique ways to continue issuing building
permits by shifting to virtual inspections online. New information on market impacts and
approaches to support housing stock and financial assistance are continuously evolving. Many
have instituted moratoriums on evictions due to COVID-19 related nonpayment of rent.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
16• At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, some cities and counties across California enacted
ordinances that temporarily suspended residential and commercial evictions for non-
payment and late payments of rent. Jurisdictions that chose to establish eviction relief
platforms have supplied information to community members on county and city websites.
It is unclear how long these new eviction protections will be in place. The City of Mountain
View’s Eviction Relief page can be used as an example for applicable forms, qualified
applicants and FAQs.
• City of Anaheim approved a pilot program to assist Anaheim seniors by establishing a fund
of $645,000 to assist housing cost, rental assistance, financial counseling, moving costs,
and other financial assistance to reduce the incidence of seniors being displaced from
housing during COVID-19. The Senior Safety Net Program prioritizes senior at very low and
low income levels and is funded by federal and state assistance pulled from the city’s
housing assistance account.
• In the City of Mountain View, Mountain View Rent Relief Program provides up to $3,000
per month of rental assistance for up to two months for qualifying Mountain View tenants
impacted by COVID-19. The City Council approved $1,600,000 in rental relief to support the
community, using funding from the City’s affordable housing fund and the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG).
• Partnerships with local community foundations across the state have helped establish
financial relief funds for tenants, landlords, houseless communities, homeowners and
business owners. City councils have approved city funds and state grant funding to
establish relief programs to assist residents in keeping their homes, paying for rent, health
and safety housing repairs, food assistance, and other housing related financial assistance.
Examples of jurisdictions forming community partnerships are listed below.
o The City of Mountain View partnering with the Los Altos Community Foundation
o 10 bay area counties partnering with Silicon Valley Community Foundation
o The City of Berkeley partnering with the East Bay Community Law Center to
administer COVID-19 Housing Retention Grants
o The City of Palo Alto and Menlo Park partner with the Palo Alto Community
Foundation
o San Mateo County partnering with the San Mateo County Economic Development
Association and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to support the San Mateo
County Strong Fund
o The City of Santa Ana partnering with The Salvation Army and Catholic Charities of
Orange County to form the Safely Home Program
• City of Los Angeles, COVID-19 Safety Guidance for Construction Sites establishes the
mandatory procedures that construction sites must maintain to ensure safe working
conditions are met.
17• County of Alameda, Sheriff’s office placed a temporary halt on pursuing evictions
enforcement for the extent of the COVID shelter in place order. Tenants fearing evictions
due to financial insecurity and layoffs can ease stresses knowing regulatory action at the
county level is halted.
• County of Fresno, after the establishment of a temporary moratorium on evictions and
foreclosures, deferred payments for residential and commercial renters and homeowners
for up to six month.
• In the City of Mountain View, the Small Business Resiliency & Small Landlord Loan
Programs provided opportunities for financial relief to small businesses and landlords to
slow the decline of the local economy and to help prevent foreclosures on residential
properties. The Small Landlord Loan Program is funded through the City of Mountain View.
Establishing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Summary and Benefits
At the local level, some jurisdictions are also setting aside funds for affordable housing through
bond measures, tax measures, and newly developed tools such as Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs) and Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities. These
mechanisms provide additional opportunities for local governments to support affordable
housing goals with much needed funding.
EIFDs, enacted via SB 628 in 2014, are a relatively new tool that can fund housing. EIFD’s may
finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement of a property. EIFD’s are financed
through tax increment generated from the growth in property taxes collected from the
designated parcels. Because school districts are not permitted to participate in an EIFD, the
primary participants in EIFDs will be cities, counties and special districts. This tool can provide
funding for a wide range of uses similar to redevelopment authorities, as long as the
participating affected taxing entities agree to provide their tax increment revenue to the EIFD.
While EIFDs do not require voter approval to form, they do require 55% voter approval prior to
EIFD’s issuance of bonds.
What to change:
• Jurisdictions can partner with other cities, the county or special districts to establish an
EIFD.
• Governing Boards at the EIFD can adopt a streamlined proposal process that works with
low-income projects/ developers to streamline the approval for funding on projects that
meet predetermined requirements.
18• Reward use of these tools with matching funds. A portion of funding for affordable housing
may be in the form of matching funds for jurisdictions that utilize existing tools that
facilitate housing investment, such as Community Revitalization and Investment
Authorities and Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• California Community Economic Development Association’s Guide to EIFDs
Form-Based Code
Summary and Benefits
Form based codes are an alternative to conventional zoning codes used to regulate
development. Form-based codes are a design-focused approach in which approved land uses
are designated based on building form and use rather than the separation of uses. Often form
based codes function as a by-right development approach and if the form based criteria are
met by a project applicant, the application is approved with minimal discretionary review. By
placing primary emphasis on the form and the use, form-based codes create increased
development predictability, more predictable project costs, and allow better integration of a
community vision. Form-based codes can also function as a strategy for a streamlined
permitting process based on the adherence to the codes.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of Benicia, Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan
• City of Richmond, Richmond Livable Corridors Form Based Code
• Form-Based Codes Institute, Form-Based Codes Defined
o Form-Based Codes: A Step-by-Step Guide for Communities
• Planner’s Web, What is a Form-Based Code?
General Fund Allocation Including Former RDA Boomerang Funds
Summary and Benefits
With the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) in 2012, the State of California
removed local jurisdictions’ most significant source of local funding for affordable housing.
Across the state, redevelopment agencies provided billions in direct funding for affordable and
other housing using a 20% tax increment set-aside. These local funds often served as “first in”
money that could be leveraged to acquire other sources of funding. A portion of those former
19tax increment funds come back to local jurisdictions as both a one-time lump sum from their
former Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMIHF) and an ongoing bump to their
property tax. Counties receive such funds from each former redevelopment agency within the
county. These have been referred to as boomerang funds. At a minimum, boomerang funds
returned to jurisdictions following the dissolution of their redevelopment agencies can be
committed to subsidize affordable housing development and/or jurisdictions can issue bonds
against those funds to increase the funds available for affordable housing.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• Redwood City, Calculation of Parks impact Fee
• San Bruno, Master Fee Schedule, July 2015
• San Mateo County, Housing Element Policy 37 pg. 186, Minimize Permit Processing Fees
• Sunnyvale, Park Dedication Fees Exemption
• S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy and Research, Impact
Fees and Housing Affordability
Graduated Density Bonus
Summary and Benefits
Infill development is often difficult due to the presence of small, oddly-shaped parcels in older
parts of cities and towns. Generally, to build sites that fit with the character of the
neighborhood at densities that are economically feasible, developers assemble larger sites from
smaller parcels. Parcel assembly can be problematic, labor intensive, and assembling parcels is
generally not incentivized in ordinances.
Graduated density zoning provides jurisdictions with a tool to assemble larger sites from
smaller parcels. Jurisdictions are able to keep lower-density zoning for sites less than a given
size but allow higher density development on sites that exceed a certain trigger size. Owners
are motivated to sell if the values of their assembled parcels at higher densities greatly exceed
the current value of their parcel alone. All owners have to sell in order to achieve economic
gains from their parcels as the density bonus is only triggered when the site reaches a certain
minimum size. As a result there is an incentive to not be the last one to sell, as the last owner
could be left with an oddly shaped parcel that would be difficult if not impossible to assemble
into a larger site.
Jurisdictions can choose to institute an abrupt or sliding scale of graduated density zoning, or
even downzone in certain instances. An abrupt scale of graduated density means if an
20assembled site achieves a minimum size then higher densities are triggered. A sliding scale
means a site’s density is increased with each subsequent increase in size up to a maximum
density. For either option, the aim is to create a situation where the base density is much lower
than develops want while offering a substantial density bonus for larger sites. The abrupt
option creates a stronger incentive for the last owner to sell as the density bonus is not realized
without the last parcel. By gradually increasing density, the sliding option creates stronger
incentives for the initial owners to sell and puts less pressure on the owner of the last parcel.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• Shoup, Donald. “Graduated Density.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. (2008)
• City of San Bruno’s 2009 General Plan pg. 2-8 “Multi-Use Residential Focus
• City of Simi Valley, Kadota Fig Specific Plan Area
Home Sharing Programs
Summary and Benefits
Home Sharing is a living arrangement that matches those who have space in their home with
those who need an affordable place to live, turning existing housing stock into a new affordable
housing opportunity. As a result, home sharing is one of the few affordable housing options
available within existing housing stock. In addition to providing a critical source of housing,
home sharing helps alleviate the pressures often associated with housing expenses, and in turn,
both parties are able to reap benefits. Homeowners can save money, reduce financial worry,
share utility costs, and enjoy increased independence and an added sense of security.
While Home sharing may not create RHNA-recognized units, it may help maintain a higher
vacancy rate in local housing markets which can lead to a lower RHNA and improved housing
affordability. Home sharing is a vital option to be considered in any municipality’s strategy to
meet the growing need for housing, especially in communities that have a number of residents
who are considered “house rich, cash poor.”
Enforcing Home-Sharing Programs
Home sharing helps retain core workers in the community who are integral to the functioning
of a healthy city and county so long as they are regulated. Home sharing can be a source for
additional income to home owners when utilized as short-term, vacation rentals. In order to
prevent the wholesale conversion of homes into rental properties, legislation can establish a
regulatory framework to restrict short-term rentals to one's primary residence. Home-Sharing
Ordinances requires hosts who wish to engage in short-term rentals to register with the City
21and post their registration number on all advertisements. Hosts must adhere to all
requirements and must use the online portal to register. This process of registering a unit or
property for short-term rental or booking any short-term rental stays ensures that important
housing stock is not converted to high end vacation housing.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of Los Angeles, Home Sharing Program and Home Sharing Ordinance
• San Mateo County, HIP Housing
• City of Fremont, Home Sharing Program
Housing Accountability Act
Summary and Benefits
The California Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was recently strengthened by increasing the
documentation necessary and the standard of proof required for a local agency to legally
defend its denial of low-to-moderate-income housing development projects, and requiring
courts to impose a fine of $10,000 or more per unit on local agencies that fail to legally defend
their rejection of an affordable housing development.
Recent State legislation introduced substantial changes to HAA requirements. Most notably:
Under new provisions that become effective January 1, 2018, a developer will, in most
instances, be able to compel a city/county to approve a housing development proposal
that meets state and local standards;
A housing development proposal may usually not be denied or reduced in density if it
conforms to all objective local standards;
HAA Streamlining provisions apply in general to all housing development proposals;
Applicants must be informed of any inconsistencies with objective local standards within
30-60 days after the application in complete;
Less deference will be given by the courts to local government findings of inconsistency
with local standards;
A prevailing litigant is entitled to court costs, and in some instances, penalties
The HAA provisions must be implemented simultaneously with streamlining provisions in SB 35
and “no net loss” provisions in SB 166, each of which require a detailed applicability analysis.
Best practice may be to develop a more comprehensive checklist or flowchart that assesses all
of these requirements together.
22Model Ordinances/ Resources
• 21 Elements, HAA Short Summary
• Goldfarb & Lipman, Summary of 2017 Housing Legislation, pp. 2-5.
• League of California Cities, Recent Developments in State Housing Law
• MTC Planning Innovations, Forum #6, How Objective is “Objective”? Effective Development
Standards in the SB35 and Housing Accountability Act Era
Housing Development Impact Fee
Summary and Benefits
To help fund housing affordability, many cities have turned to the use of development impact
fees levied on new, market-rate housing development. Housing impact fees are based on an
assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing generates
additional demand for affordable housing.
As is the case with commercial linkage fees, adoption of a housing impact fee requires the
preparation of a nexus study. Typically, this study will assess the extent to which new market-
rate development attracts higher income households who will spend more on retail and
services. That increased spending creates new jobs, attracting workers to live in the city, some
of whom will be lower income and require affordable housing.
A financial feasibility study is also recommended to ensure that any housing impact fee does
not render development infeasible.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of Berkeley, Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study
• City of Fremont, Establishment of Affordable Housing Fees (Zoning Code 18.155.090)
• City of San Carlos, Housing Impact Fee
• 21 Elements, Grand Nexus Study
o Impact Fee Support Materials
Housing Overlay Zone
Summary and Benefits
23Housing overlay zones provide a flexible tool that overlays conventional zoning designations
and can allow additional uses, densities, or housing types. These areas can be designed to offer
developers a more favorable development framework or allow for permitting additional types
of alternative housing. On sites where land is not zoned for residential use but a city would like
to see affordable housing built, a housing overlay district may eliminate the time consuming
process of amending a general plan to construct such housing.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• City of Menlo Park: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
• City of Capitola: Affordable Housing Overlay District
• City of Buellton, Factsheet: Housing Overlay Zone
• Public Advocates, Factsheet: Housing Overlay Zones
• 21 Elements, Factsheet: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Housing Trust Funds
Summary and Benefits
Housing trust funds are distinct funds that receive ongoing public financial support for the
preservation and production of affordable housing and increase opportunities for families and
individuals to access decent affordable homes. Housing trust funds provide local officials with a
vehicle to coordinate a complex array of state and federal programs to fashion a housing
strategy that is tailored to their community’s unique needs. While housing trust funds can also
be a repository for private donations, they are not public/private partnerships, nor are they
endowed funds operating from interest and other earnings. Housing trust funds are extremely
flexible and can be used to support innovative ways to address many types of housing needs.
Housing Trust Funds are an affordable housing production program that complements existing
Federal, state and local efforts to increase and preserve the supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
affordable housing for extremely low- and very low-income households, including homeless
families. HTF funds may be used for the production or preservation of affordable housing
through the acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, and/or rehabilitation of non-luxury
housing with suitable amenities. The primary revenue source for the majority of county housing
trust funds was a document recording fee, but many also received funding from sales taxes,
developer impact fees, real estate transfer taxes, restaurant taxes, property taxes and their
county’s general fund.
What to change:
24• Adopt a Housing Impact Fee, with funds dedicated to an affordable housing trust fund to be
used to preserve and expand the supply of affordable housing.
Resources
• Silicon Valley Housing Trust
Identify Potential Other Funding Sources to Pay for Growth
Summary and Benefits
The state and many localities rely on taxing new development to fund services and
infrastructure. Looking forward, it will be important to identify alternative ways to pay for
growth which will allow local governments to reduce fees on new housing.
What to change:
• Explore Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (EIFDs) to implement tax increment
financing to facilitate housing projects.
• Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs) are public agencies, separate
from the city and county that have the purpose of receiving tax increments from any taxing
entity within the area, who so chooses to allocate some or its entire share of tax increment
funds to the CRIA.
• Infrastructure and Revitalization Districts (IRFDs) are a legislative body of the city or county
with the primary role of mobilizing tools and resources to fund public infrastructure,
affordable housing, economic development, job creation, and environmental protection
and remediation.
• Improve partnerships with affordable housing developers to coordinate on funding
applications. Hold regular coordination meetings to prioritize facilitate and streamline
additional affordable housing development.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Summary and Benefits
An inclusionary housing policy enables jurisdictions to require or encourage developers to set
aside a certain percentage of housing units in new or rehabilitated projects for low and
moderate-income residents. Inclusionary housing policies ensure that every community
provides a range of housing choices and creates new affordable homes without needing
25government subsidies. These policies can provide developers with options to build the
affordable units on-site, offsite or to pay in-lieu fees into a local housing trust fund.
The ability of jurisdictions to mandate inclusionary housing was severely restricted in 2009 with
the California Appellate Court ruling Palmer v. City of Los Angeles, which determined that
inclusionary requirements on rental units conflicted with the 1995 Costa Hawkins Act, which
regulates rent control. Ownership units are not constrained.
Model Ordinances/ Resources
• California Rural Housing Association, Inclusionary Housing Database
• Grounded Solutions Network, Inclusionary Housing Calculator
• Institute for Local Government (ILG), California Inclusionary Housing Reader
• Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH), Inclusionary Housing Advocacy
Toolkit
• Poverty & Race Research Action Council, Inclusionary Zoning: A selected annotated
bibliography, February 2014
Infrastructure Improvement Strategies
Summary and Benefits
Availability of infrastructure (such as sidewalks, safe drinking water, and adequate waste
processing) and infrastructure costs are a significant barrier to addressing housing challenges
throughout California. In urban and suburban areas, compact infill development at increased
density is critical for addressing housing needs and using valuable, location-efficient land near
transit and job centers. However, inadequate and crumbling infrastructure may require
significant investment to improve capacity for development to occur. Upgrades to existing
infrastructure in infill areas can be more expensive than building in greenfield areas and can
increase housing costs.
Like urban and suburban communities, rural communities also struggle with crumbling
infrastructure systems and costs associated with installing new infrastructure. Existing systems
in rural areas may lack the capacity to accommodate new water and sewer connections. Some
rural areas may also rely on septic systems for sewer, which constrains new development.
In addition to local challenges, infrastructure problems affect entire regions. In the coastal
regions of California, access to water is a barrier to new development. For example, access to
26You can also read
